Boy O, Boyd! | False Prophecies for Fun and Prophet | The "Transitional Verses" in Matthew 24 | Recent Developments in the Eschatological Debate | As Lightening Cometh From the East | The Spiritual Nature of the Kingdom | Apocalypse Then | Book Review: Revelation: Four Views | The Beast of Revelation Identified | Video: The Beast of Revelation Identified | Beast FAQ | Back to the Future | Diplopic Tension in Revelation? | Who's who in prophecy | The Beast of Revelation | Before Jerusalem Fell | Dispensationalism in Transition Newsletters

"Actually, all Christians--even dispensationalists--are preteristic to some extent. This is necessarily so because Christianity holds that a great many of the Messianic passages have already been fulfilled in Christ's first coming."

 

Dividing Line Between Destruction of Jerusalem and General Judgment - Matthew 24:36 First Part (Matt. 24:1-35) Second Part (Matt. 24:36-25:46) End of Old Covenant Age End of World Specific Signs General Signs Run away when it happens Be ready at all times Christ knows what and when Christ did not know the time or hour There are warning signs It will happen unexpectedly Abnormal times Normal times: weddings, buying, selling Judgment on earth Judgment in heaven

"I believe that the judgment chapters of Revelation (Chs. 6- 19) focus almost exclusively on the events associated with the first imperial persecution of Christianity (AD. 64-68), the Roman Civil Wars (AD 68-69), and the destruction of the Temple and Israel (AD. 67- 70)."

(On Matthew 16:28)
"we should note that on another occasion Christ specifically promised His hearers “there be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power” (Mark 9:1). Some of those very persons standing before him would not die before the event! Which one of them is still alive today?" (House Divided, 180)

"In Mark 9:1 Jesus promises that some of his hearers would not "taste of death" before witnessing the "coming of the kingdom with power." This almost certainly refers to the destruction of the temple at the behest of Christ..." (Before Jerusalem Fell, p. lii)

(On Matthew 24:27)
"Jesus warns His followers that He will not appear bodily in the first-century judgment (vv. 23-26).  Nevertheless, He will "come" in judgment like a destructive lightening bolt against Jerusalem (v.27).  This coming, however, is a providential judgment coming, a Christ-directed judgment, rather than a miraculous, visible, bodily coming.

Nor is the coming as lightening in Matthew 24:27 a publicly visible, physical coming.  Rather, it is a judgment coming against those who call down Jesus' blood upon them and their children (v.25).  The Lord here speaks about His judgment coming against Jerusalem (see 23:37-24:2) as analogous to "the lightening [that] comes from the east, and flashes even to the west."  As I begin to interpret the passage, remember that the local context demands this coming occur in "this generation" (24:34), having reference to the destruction of the temple." (The Great Tribulation: Past or Future?, MI: Kregel, 1999,  p. 53-54)

The direction of this judgment coming of Christ in Matthew 24:27 apparently reflects the Roman armies marching toward Jerusalem from an easterly direction.  Josephus' record of the march of the Roman armies through Israel shows they wreak havoc on Jerusalem by approaching it from the east." (The Great Tribulation: Past or Future?, MI: Kregel, 1999,  p. 53-54; cf. Josephus' Wars 4:8:1; 4:9:1)

(On Matthew 24:34)
"We must not miss the clear references to the contemporary expectation. Enclosing the relevant portion of the discourse, we have Christ's own time-element designation. In 23:36, he dogmatically asserts 'all these things shall come upon this generation.' He closes the relevant portion of the prophecy by repetition of the time frame: Matthew 24:34 says, 'Verily I say unto you, this generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.' And just forty years later Jerusalem was destroyed! Contextually the 'this generation' of Matthew 24:34 must speak of the same idea as that of Matthew 23:36" (Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr., He Shall Have Dominion, p. 162).

(On Luke 21)
"...Luke’s account in Luke 21, which definitely speaks of the A.D. 70 destruction of the physical temple to which the disciples actually pointed. (Gentry, Beast of Revelation, p. 128)

(On II Thessalonians 2:1,2)
"Verses 1-2. Paul's reference 'concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to him' (2 Thessalonians 2:1) is the crux interpretum of this passage. Paul is here speaking of the A.D. 70 judgment on the Jews - the very judgment given emphasis in the first portion of the Olivet Discourse, the Book of Revelation, and several other passages of Scripture." (He shall have Dominion, p.386)

(On Hebrews 9:26)
"Notice the key phrase: ‘in the end of the world.’ In the original Greek, it reads: ‘completion of the ages.’ This phrase must be taken literally, but its literal frame of reference was the fall of Jerusalem and the annulment of the temple’s sacrificial system. The author was therefore prophesying the imminent end of national Israel as God’s covenant people."  (The Beast of Revelation, p.xiv)

(On Hebrews 12:25-29)
"The Jerusalem holocaust was coming in that generation... I Thessalonians 2:16 speaks of Jews who ‘always fill up the measure of their sins’ and upon whom ‘the wrath has come...to the utmost.’ Hebrews 12:18-29 contrasts Judaism and its fulfillment, Christianity, and notes that there is an approaching ‘shaking’ of the old order coming." (Before Jerusalem Fell, p.235)

(On Revelation 1:19; Mello)
"...this term means ‘be on the point of, be about to.’...According to Young’s Literal Translation of the Bible, Revelation 1:19 reads: ‘Write the things that thou hast seen, and the things that are, and the things that are about to come [mello] after these things." The leading interlinear versions of the New Testament concur. This is surely the proper translation of the verse." (The Beast of Revelation pp.23-24)

(On Revelation 11:1)
"If John wrote about literal Jerusalem ("where also their Lord was crucified" ) twenty-five years after the destruction of the literal Temple (as per the evangelically formulated late date argument), it would seem most improbable that he would speak of the Temple as if it were still standing. The symbol would be confusing in its blatant anachronism. The Temple is required to be standing for the symbolical action of the vision to have any meaning. John uses the future tense when he speaks of the nations’ treading down the city. As just stated, this is not a reminiscence of a past event, but rather a future expectation." (p.175)

(On Revelation 17:10)
"It seems indisputably clear that the book of Revelation must be dated in the reign of Nero Caesar, and consequently before his death in June, A.D. 68. He is the sixth king; the short-lived rule of the seventh king (Galba) "has not yet come." In addition to all the foregoing, it would seem unreasonable to exclude Julius from the list in light of the circumstances and subject matter of the book." (Before Jerusalem Fell, p.151)

 (On Revelation 22:10)
"...Thayer expands on the idea of the word '...concerning things imminent and soon to come to pass.’ He lists Revelation 1:3 and 22:10 in his series of examples. The word is used frequently of chronologically near events, such as approaching summer (Matt. 24:32), the Passover (Matt. 26:18; John 2:13; 11:55), the Feast of Tabernacles (John 7:2), etc. How could events related to the collapse of the Roman Empire two or three hundred years in the future be considered "at hand"...? ...Several generations of these Christians would have waxed and waned over such a period. Even more difficult to understand is how events two or three thousand years in the future could be considered "at hand" ...How could such events so remotely stretched out into the future be "at hand"? But if the expected events were to occur within a period of from one to five years... then all becomes clear."   (Before Jerusalem Fell, pp. 140-141)

(On Preterist History)
"The term ‘preterism’ is based on the Latin preter, which means ‘past.’ Preterism refers to that understanding of certain eschatological passages which holds that they have already come to fulfillment. Actually, all Christians--even dispensationalists--are preteristic to some extent. This is necessarily so because Christianity holds that a great many of the Messianic passages have already been fulfilled in Christ's first coming." (He Shall Have Dominion [Tyler, TX: Institute for Christian Economics, 1997], 162–163).

(On the Significance of A.D.70)
"...in Acts 2:16ff. the Pentecostal tongues event in Jerusalem was pointed to as a harbinger of ‘the day of the Lord’ that was coming. Tongues-speaking was a warning sign to Peter’s hearers of the necessity of their being ‘saved from this perverse generation’ (Acts 2:40) before the ‘great and glorious day of the Lord’ (Acts 2:20)." (Before Jerusalem Fell, p.234)

(On the Dating of Revelation)
"My confident conviction is that a solid case for a Neronic date for Revelation can be set forth from the available evidences, both internal and external.  In fact, I would lean toward a date after the outbreak of the Neronic persecution in late A.D.64 and before the declaration of the Jewish war in early A.D.67.  A date in either A.D.65 or early A.D.66 would seem most suitable." [Before Jerusalem Fell (Tyler, TX: ICE, 1989), 336.]

“John emphasizes his anticipation of the soon occurrences of his prophecy by strategic placement of these time references.  He places his boldest time statements in both the introduction and conclusion to Revelation.  It is remarkable that so many recent commentators have missed it literally coming and going!  The statement of expectancy is found three times in the first chapter – twice in the first three verses: Revelation 1:1,3,19.  The same idea is found four times in his concluding remarks:  Revelation 22:6,7,12,20.  It is as if John carefully bracketed the entire work to avoid any confusion.”  (The Beast of Revelation; Tyler, TX; ICE, 1982; p. 21-22). 

“Think of it: If these words in these verses do not indicate that John expected the events to occur soon, what words could John have used to express such?  How could he have said it more plainly?” (The Beast of Revelation; Tyler, TX; ICE, 1982; p. 24).

(On 'Last Days')
"In A.D.70 the 'last days' ended with the dissolution of the temple and the sacrificial system." (ibid., p. 38)

"The last days spoken of in the New Testament were eschatological last days only for national Israel, not for the New Covenant church. The "last days" were in fact the early days of the church of Jesus Christ." (Beast of Revelation, xiv)

(On the 144,000)
"In Revelation 7:1-8 we find an interesting temporary divine protection of ‘the land’ where four angels are seen holding back the winds of destruction... Then follows the sealing of the 144,000 from the Twelve Tribes of Israel... Clearly the reference to the Twelve Tribes is to Christians... of Jewish extraction... they are contrasted with the "great multitude" from "every nation" who praise God (v.9). ...While speaking in the Olivet Discourse of the destruction of the very Temple to which the disciples could physically point... He also clearly taught that all of these things would happen to "this generation" (Matt. 24:32). Indeed, this coming event was to be "the great tribulation" (Matt. 24:21) - the very tribulation of which John writes (Rev. 7:14)." (Before Jerusalem Fell, pp.232-234)

(On the Second Coming of Christ)
"The cloud-coming of Christ in judgment is reminiscent of Old Testament cloud-comings of God in judgment upon ancient historical people and nations." [He Shall Have Dominion (Tyler, TX: ICE, 1992) 388-389]

"The final collapse of Jerusalem and the Temple.. Through these events the Jews were to "see" the Son of Man in His judgment-coming in terrifying cloud-glory: clouds are symbols of divine majesty often entailing stormy destruction.   The members of the Sanhedrin and others would experience such in their life times (Matt. 26:64; Mark 9:1; cf. Rev 1:7 with Rev 1:1,3)." (ibid. 348)

“The nature of the event has to do with a ‘Cloud-Coming’ of Christ. It is necessary here to understand the Old Testament backdrop for a proper comprehension of the matter. The Old Testament frequently uses clouds as indicators of divine judgment.” (Before Jerusalem Fell; Bethesda, MD: Christian University Press, 1997; p. 121)

(Where Gentry Stood on The Olivet Discourse 9/98)
"I do not believe that I am THEOLOGICALLY committed to requiring that both judgments (A.D. 70 and Second Advent) appear in Matthew’s Olivet Discourse. My evangelical creedal commitments require a Second Advent, to be sure, but not necessarily a Second Advent in Matthew 24-25. Indeed, these chapters could theoretically speak ONLY of A.D. 70 (even though I believe such would be quite awkward). I do not have any unyielding theological commitments against applying the entire Olivet Discourse in Matthew 24-25 to A.D. 70. If these chapters apply only to A.D. 70, so be it!" (The Great Tribulation in Progressive Dispensationalism (Part 3) - Dispensationalism in Transition, September, 1998)

(Where Gentry Stood on The Olivet Discourse 2/99)
"But again -- as I argue in an earlier newsletter (Oct., 1998) -- WHERE is the temporal marker serving as the springboard from the first century into the distant future? I have no problem with A.D. 70 texts coming into close association with Second Advent texts: they are theologically related (see Matt. 24:3-35 with Matt. 24:36ff in my September, 1998 issue). I do, however, have a problem with the mere ASSERTION without proper exegetical notation -- and especially since such goes AGAINST positive contrary evidence." (An Introductory Disclaimer, Orlando Conference)

(On Full Preterism - "Hyper-Preterism" in Gentry)
"...goes too far by extending valid observations gathered from temporally confined judgment passages (texts including such delimitations as ‘soon’ and ‘at hand’) to passages that are not temporally constrained and that actually prophesy the future advent of Christ." (Tabletalk magazine, January 1999, p.56)

"Before I begin my analysis and critique, however, I must make very clear my orthodox convictions regarding biblical eschatology. I pause to do so because a new, unorthodox movement has arisen that confuses many Christians regarding orthodox preterism. This new movement largely arises from within Church of Christ (Campbellite) circles; indeed, the two main publishing sources of the movement are run by present or former Campbellites (though, like any good cult-like movement, it is widening its net and drawing followers from other sources). This movement asserts that A.D. 70 witnesses the fulfilling of ALL eschatological prophecy. This mutant form of preterism goes too far, for it denies a future Second Advent of Christ; a future, bodily resurrection of the dead; and other historic, orthodox doctrines of the Christian faith." (An Introductory Disclaimer)

"Unfortunately, a new gnosticism is infecting the church: hyper-preterism. One major feature of hyper-preterism is its denial of a future physical resurrection of the believer at the end of history. As we shall see, this contradicts a major result of the resurrection of Christ. Before I demonstrate this, I must briefly summarize the argument for Christ's physical resurrection, which is the effective cause of our own future resurrection. " (Christ's Resurrection and ours)

(On Lightfoot)
"In fact, one of the finest intellects of the Westminster Assembly was a strong preterist: John Lightfoot (1601-1675). In his Commentary on the New Testament from the Talmud and Hebraica (1674; rep. 1989) Lightfoot offered a fine preterist exposition of Matthew 24 (2:308-321), with allusions to 2 Thessalonians 2. Of the Thessalonian passage he argued that the "restrainer" therein "is to be understood of the emperor Claudius enraged at and curbing in the Jews" (2:312).
 
Lightfoot even adopted the view that Revelation 1:7 speaks of "Christ's taking vengeance on that exceeding wicked nation" of Israel (2:319 and 422). There he interpreted Christ's coming as a providential judgment upon "those who pierced him" (the Jews) from among "all the tribes of the land literally" (Israel). This committed Lightfoot so strongly to preterism that he suggested Revelation's overall theme is Israel's judgment: "I may further add, that perhaps this observation might not a little help (if my eyes fail me not) in discovering the method of the author of the Book of the Revelation" (3:210). This led him to conclude that the "judiciary scene set up in Rev. 4 and 5, and those thrones Rev. 20:1" speak of "the throne of glory" and "is to be understood of the judgment of Christ to be brought upon the treacherous, rebellious, wicked, Jewish people. We meet with very frequent mention of the coming of Christ in his glory in this sense" (2:266)." (Back to the Future)

"Introduction" to the 1990 reprint of David Brown Book:
"Christ's Second Coming, Will It Be Premillennial?"

"It is with great pleasure that I avail myself of the opportunity to write a forward to ....David Brown's "Christ's Second Coming: Will It Be Premillennial?"...this work is widely regarded as 'a classic'....

"Lest it be misunderstood by my endorsement of Brown, I would like to point out on major area of disagreement. This has very little to do  with the millennial question, ironic as it may first appear. Brown's approach to Revelation is along the lines of historicism. That is, he sees the prophecies of Revelation as stretching out over the long ages of history. This, of course, helps explain his latter day view of the millennium mentioned above (in that Revelation 20 occurs after Revelation 6-19). My interpretive approach to Revelation, as is evident in each of my three most recent works is that of Preterism. That is, I believe that the judgment chapters of Revelation (Chs. 6- 19) focus almost exclusively on the events associated with the first imperial persecution of Christianity (AD. 64-68), the Roman Civil Wars (AD 68-69), and the destruction of the Temple and Israel (AD. 67- 70).

"Nevertheless, the differences between Brown's historicist approach to Revelation and my preteristic approach has absolutely no bearing on the postmillennial question. Either approach to Revelation could be rejected and postmillennialism would still remain. Postmillennialism is not dependent upon the book on Revelation, whereas premillennialism and dispensationalism very much are....

"Clearly Brown's historicism allows a postmillennial dominion for Christ in earth's history before His Second Advent. So does my preteristic view. Despite the confusion in the minds of some, the issues just mentioned are in two wholly different arenas of debate. The postmillennial question involves a locus of theology: eschatology; the preteristic verses the historicist approach to Revelation involves an interpretive methodology -- to one particular book of the Bible. In other words, I would have desired more access to preterism by Brown that he offers (he does approach a number of prophetic passages as preteristically relevant to the destruction of Jerusalem)."

WHAT OTHERS HAVE SAID

Ann Rice (2005)
"When Jewish and Christian scholars begin to take this war seriously, when they begin to really study what happened during the terrible years of the siege of Jerusalem, the destruction of the Temple.. when they focus upon the persecution of the Christians in Palestine by the Jews; upon the civil war in Rome in the 60s which Kenneth L. Gentry so well describes in his work Before Jerusalem Fell; as well as the persecutions of the Jews in the Diasporia during this period -- in sum, when all of this dark era is brought into the light of examination -- Bible studies will change."  (Anne Rice, Christ the Lord, Out of Egypt, p. 316)

Mike Sullivan
"Gentry gives 5 reasons why he differs from other preterists (partial and full) on this text and why he thinks it refers to the end of the planet and time:

1)     Gentry appeals to passages within 2Peter in hopes to somehow prove it’s contents are  “long term” and refer to an end of time and of the planet judgment.  A call to perseverance, godliness, and the judgment of fallen angels seem to be his first line of “evidence”: 

     “It is only through long-term perseverance that we may expect access to the eternal kingdom of Jesus Christ (1:11).  Peter himself expects to die soon (1:13-14; as did Paul, 2Tim.5:6-8).  Consequently, he urges his readers to recall these things after he is gone (1:15), apparently not expecting a rapture of the Church in A.D. 70 (as per radical preterists).

     Peter gives Noah and Lot as examples of those who persevered through hard times, like those facing the looming destruction of Jerusalem.  They came out on the other end still upon the earth (2:5-9).  The rescue of believers from the oncoming temptation (2:9a) associated with A.D.70 (by preserving then in trial, Luke 21:18-22) is set in contrast to the reserving of the fallen angels and the ungodly until the (later) Judgment Day (2:4, 9b).  While contemplating the judgment cleansing of the earth, we are urged to “holy livings” and “pieties” (Greek plurals of these words occur only here, 3:11), suggesting many acts of righteousness for the long term.  The book ends with a call to perseverance, as well (3:15, 17).”[ii]   

We need to make an obvious observation in that 2Peter follows 1Peter especially with Peter’s desire and comment to “remind” his readers of things he previously taught them “…to stir you up by reminding you, knowing that shortly I must put off my tent, just as our Lord Jesus Christ showed me.” (1:13).  This “reminder” is given again in the immediate context “Beloved, I now write to you this second epistle (in both of which I stir up your pure minds by way of reminder), that you may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us, the apostles of the Lord and Savior, knowing this first: that scoffers will come in the last days, walking according to their own lusts, and saying, “Where is the promise of His coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation.”  Having said that, the “precious promises” of salvation and entrance into the kingdom of which Peter refers were identified in his first letter as those predicted by all the OT prophets (of which included the second coming) and were to be fulfilled according to Peter – in his generation and within the lifetimes of the recipients of his letters (1Pet.1:4-13, 1Pet.4:7, as also preached by him in Acts 2-3 concerning the second coming in judgment upon that “perverse generation” of whom would experience the “restoration of all things”).  Peter never wrote his letters with a “long term” expectation but rather stated, “the end of all things is at hand”!  And Peter’s “all things” is earlier defined by all the promises of the OT prophets which obviously included the passing of the old heaven and earth and the brining in of the new at the Day of the Lord (1Pet.1:4-13/Isa.63-66)!.  The fact that Peter expected to die soon as the Lord had shown him supports that the period of expectation was not “long” but “at hand” as His Lord had instructed him on earlier occasions (ie.Mt.16:27-28/cf. Jn.20:18-24).  Since Gentry believes that Mt.16:27-28 refers to AD 70 his comments in regard to Peter’s statements concerning his death and the coming of Christ and judgment as allegedly proving a “long-term perseverance” of  thousands of years is baffling to say the least! 

Peter’s exhortations to perseverance until the end and exhortations to godly living to first century Christians do not prove a “long-term” of  millennium anymore than they do in these texts in which Gentry sees a fulfillment in A.D.70 (Mt.10:17-23, Mt.24:9-13, Lk.18:1-8, Rev.1-6).  My personal favorite is (Rev.1-6) and in particular (3:1-6) where the Church at Sardis is given moral exhortations to persevere and godly living in light of Christ coming as a “thief” (all elements of 2Pet.3) and we are told by Gentry and his mentor Dr. Greg Bahnsen that the fact that these were moral exhortations to perseverance and godly living given to a first century audience proves that the coming as a “thief” refers to a A.D.70 fulfillment.  But speaking out of the other side of their Creedal mouths, we are told that somehow Christ coming “as a thief” in (Mt.24/2Pet.3) turns into a 2,000+ year coming of Christ. 

Gentry merely eisegetically assumes that Peter is “contrasting” temporal in time judgments in which people lived through and time went on (the flood & Sodom judgments) with an end of time and the planet Judgment in (2:4, 9 & chp.3).  The notion that the fallen angels reserved for judgment somehow proves a future planet ending coming of the Lord is likewise not an exegetical or logical argument.  Gentry tells us that Peter’s time statement of “the end of all things is at hand” is referring to the fall of Jerusalem but doesn’t really tell us how God was “ready to judge the living and the dead” in A.D. 70 (1Pet.4:5, 7, 17).[iii]  Nor does Gentry explain to us how Satan was “crushed” “shortly” in A.D.70 (Rms.16:20 – cf.Gen.3:15) (ibid. pp.135, 138, 142) and yet the judgment of the fallen angels of (2Pet.2:4) is eisegetically assumed to be thousands of years off.  Gentry’s writings are riddled with these kind of contradictions and a direct failure to allow “Scripture to interpret Scripture.”  We are told that Satan was crushed shortly in A.D. 70 and that all the time statements in the book of Revelation point to a fulfillment in A.D.70 and yet someone how the judgment of the wicked and Satan in (Rev.20) are exempted from the time statements!?!  Last I checked the first verse of Revelation states that it’s contents are about “…things which must shortly take place.”  Gentry’s interpretation of the book however causes one to interject a foreign meaning that “most of the things must shortly take place.”  Let’s now go on to some more of Gentry’s arbitrary hermeneutics as he seeks to explain why (2Pet.3) is referring to the end of time and the planet. 

2)     Gentry further explains how (2Pet.3) is allegedly teaching a “long wait” of thousands of years and invents TWO “not yet” periods from (Isa.65-66) because: 

“Second the mockers scoff at the promised second advent of Christ due to the long wait associated with it (2Pet.3:3-4, 9).  Despite the trials to come soon (2:9), Peter even suggests it may be thousands of years before Christ’s return, in that the delay is based on God’s time rather than man’s:  “But, beloved, do not forget this one thing, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years , and a thousand years as one day” (3:8).  This fits well with Christ’s “now/not yet” teaching elsewhere, where He contrasts the short time until the destruction of Jerusalem (Matt.23:36; 24:34) with that of the long wait for the second advent to end history (Matt.25:5, 14)” (ibid. Dominion, p.303). 

First, Gentry is once again attempting to make unbiblical comparisons and contrasts and this time he is trying to make Jesus’ statements in the Olivet Discourse of a “long time,” “not knowing the day and hour” and “this generation” as referring to different events separated by thousands of years.  However, just because Jesus states that only the Father knows the day and hour does not negate that Jesus knew and taught that the day and hour would fall within His contemporary “this generation.”  There is no contradiction or “contrast” of different time periods separated by thousands of years between (Mt.24:34 & 36).  Likewise there are no contradictions or contrasts of different time periods being communicated between “the Bridegroom delayed,” “a man traveling to a far country,” “After a long time,” and “this generation” (Mt.24:34; Mt.25:5, 14, 19).  If the disciples were 20 – 40 years of age when Jesus gave the Olivet Discourse then yes, in relation to their lifetimes or life spans a “generation” of 40 years could be considered a “long time” for they would be between 60 and 80 years old by the time the fall of Jerusalem would take place.  Since Israel had been waiting some 2,000 years for Messiah and redemption to come a span of a “generation” and “some standing here shall not taste of death” was a very “at hand” time frame for the Jews and their hopes for the “restoration of all things” predicted by the prophets.  However, in relation to the individual’s life span it could be considered a “long time” as they were nearing the ends of their life spans, 70 – 80 years of age (Ps.90:10). 

Secondly, it is odd to find Gentry using (2Pet.3:8) to be teaching God’s time vs. man’s time – since Gentry claims that all N.T. imminent time texts (except those dealing with the resurrection!) are to be taken literally and to be referring to A.D. 70.  If Gentry can say that (2Pet.3:8) is addressing “thousands of years” prior to Christ’s return based on “God’s time,” then other futurists can use this same “argument” to claim that the N.T. time texts don’t mean anything. 

Thirdly, Gentry’s position on the “now/not yet” of (Isa.65-66); (Rev.21); and (2Pet.3) is contradictory.  I have clearly quoted Gentry earlier on in regard to (Isa.65-66) and (Rev.21) where he stated that the “not yet” spiritual promises of the new heavens and new earth creation Isaiah predicted came in A.D.70 in (Rev.21).  He cannot now come to (Isa.65-66) in relation to (2Pet.3) and make up an entirely new “not yet” prediction using the same OT text (ie. Isa.65-66) in order to pay homage to the creeds!!!  Gentry’s position is neither logical nor exegetical but is rather painfully arbitrary and contradicts his own hermeneutics and statements.   All Biblical scholars of every eschatological position see an “already” and “not yet” in regards to the unfolding of the kingdom and second coming of Christ.  The “already” of Christ’s kingdom is traditionally seen to be within the periods of Christ’s earthly ministry, His cross and resurrection, Pentecost, and extending to the “not yet” of the second coming and new creation.  Gentry once again with using eisegetical slight of hand has introduced two “not yet” periods all the while making points on (2Pet.3:8) that undermine the reality that the entire N.T.’s “not yet” was something “at hand” and not 2000+ years away.  But we have seen Gentry try this with inventing two “ends of the age” and two Great Commissions, so we must once again point out Gentry’s failures as an exegete and his creedally arbitrary positions.                         

3)  Gentry’s third point is that (2Pet.3) must be future because of God’s patience in fulfilling the Great Commission which is an “age-long” process and end’s at a time only known to the Father when God’s will is accomplished on earth as it is in heaven (Dominion, p.303-304) 

I have already refuted these erroneous assumptions elsewhere in demonstrating that Gentry and other partial preterists have to make up two different Great Commissions with two “age-long” periods that are foreign to Scripture.  Gentry’s appeal to God’s will being done on earth as it was in heaven (Matt.6:10) as a futuristic text is described in the book of Revelation as the New Jerusalem coming down from heaven to earth (Rev.21) – which Gentry tells us was apparently one of two  “not/yet” periods of Bible prophecy that came in A.D. 70. 

4)  Gentry’s fourth point is that Peter is referencing the destruction of the planet to it’s beginning in (Gen.1) and not the destruction of the old covenant order: 

“Fourth, the reference to the unraveling and conflagration of the heavens and the earth is expressly tied to the material creation.  Hence, it seems clearly to refer to the consummation, and not A.D. 70, despite certain similarities.  Peter expressly refers to the material creation order:  “from the beginning of creation” (3:4; cf. Gen.1:1); “by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of water and in the water” (3:5; cf. Gen.1:2, 9); “the heavens and the earth which now exist” (2Pet.3:7).  He seems clearly to be defining the “heavens and earth” to which he is referring. He is not contemplating the destruction of the old Jewish order, but the material heavens and the earth.” (Dominion, p.304).  

Gentry does not agree with futurists who make “comparisons” and insist and assume that in (Mt.24) and elsewhere, that just as the flood was universal so too must the tribulation be universal in scope over the entire “earth.”  He argues that the tribulation is not a global event but a localized event dealing with covenantal wrath upon Israel’s promised land and perhaps extending throughout the Roman Empire.  Therefore, Gentry rejects futurists “comparisons” of the flood in relation to a global tribulation and finds them unbiblical.  Well, we find Gentry’s appeals and “comparisons” to (Gen.1-9) to “prove” that (2Pet.3) must be future, literal, and universal just as unconvincing.

The context is the flood and the “world” at that time being destroyed (2Pet.3:6).  We take this as John Owen, John Lightfoot, Gary DeMar, and other futurists - and that the main point being the world of ungodly men perishing and not the entire globe is the subject.  For Gentry’s “comparison” to work out he would need to demonstrate that the flood destroyed the planet just as it is alleged by him that the entire planet will be destroyed by literal fire in the future.  At best Gentry can argue for a global flood that destroyed animals and wicked man – but not the planet/elements.  And even then if adhering to a global flood, Gentry would then have to concede that God covenanted with animal life and man to never destroy them again (Gen.9) but ends up doing so anyway except this time with fire in (2Pet.3).   As Don Preston has pointed out in his writings on this issue –  God’s point and covenant with nature is not his method of destruction (water or fire), but of His mercy. 

Secondly, as Gentry admitted earlier in the judgments of the flood and the A.D. 70 judgment that people “came out on the other end still on the earth,” so too does (Isa.65-66) depict men living on the earth after the passing of the old creation, for the purpose  preaching the gospel to the Gentiles (Isa.66:19-24).  This is the very text, prediction, and “promise” that Peter is discussing in (2Pet.3).  So obviously this “consummation” is not the destruction of the planet but rather one in which they come out on “the other end still on the earth” (Dominion, p.302). 

Thirdly, there are some futurists of which Gentry is, who take the flood as covering a local area and not a globalized event.  In fact most Christians today don’t even realize that many of the older commentators and even Josephus (a Jewish historian living during the time of the NT) held to a local or regional flood.  The young earth and global flood has been popularized by the fairly recent movements of the Seventh Day Adventists and Dispensationalism’s “Christian Science.”[iv] 

Mr. Gentry tells us that since most of Revelation is dealing with A.D. 70 the Greek word for “earth” ge ghay in Revelation should better be translated as “land.” 

“Thus, upon purely lexical considerations, the term can be understood as designating the Promised Land.  As a matter of fact, literal translations of the Scripture lean in this direction.”[v]                    

We of course are told by Mr. Gentry and other partial preterists such as Gary DeMar that in using sound hermeneutical principals we need to let the writers of that day and time  interpret such words as “world” or “earth” as the Roman Empire, old covenant world, or “world as they knew it.”  They stress that we cannot impose our 21^st century concepts of the “world” upon various texts.  I of course agree with Mr. Gentry here but would add that the Hebrew word for “earth” Erets in Genesis has a predominately local geographical area of the Mesopotamian region in view as well.  And of course just as Jesus and Paul (Mt.24:14; Cols.1:5-6, 23) are not discussing the evangelism of planet earth and that the people of that time understood the “world” as the Roman Empire or the “world as they knew it,” so too was the case of the historical setting and early audience of Genesis.  Their “world” consisted of the Mesopotamian region." (Mike Sullivan, Kenneth Gentry’s Reasons Why 2Pet.3 Has To Do With The End of Time and Planet Considered and Refuted)
 

BEFORE JERUSALEM FELL CONTENTS

50 page Preface answers objections by critics. Careful exegesis of Scripture and meticulous research of ancient authors. Not only resolves technical question of Revelation's date, but provides much helpful exposition of Revelation. "An academic work clearly argued, with full documentation and detailed footnotes on the subject" (Banner of Truth)."Thorough and outstanding" (George W. Knight). "Impressive job of collecting evidence.... Well researched and cogently presented" (Criswell Theological Review). "A strong case for the early external evidence" (J.P.M. Sweet, Journal of Theological Studies). "Comprehensive survey of the issues, sources and modern writers" (E. Earle Ellis).
459pp. Index. American Vision. Hardcover.
 
Table of Contents
 
PART I: PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS
1. Revelation Studies
2: The Approach to the Question of Dating
 
PART II: THE EXTERNAL EVIDENCE
3. Introduction to the External Evidence
4. Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons
5. Clement of Alexandria
6. Additional External Witnesses
 
PART III: THE INTERNAL EVIDENCE
7. The Role of the Internal Evidence
8. The Theme of Revelation
9. The Temporal Expectation of the Author
10. The Identity of the Sixth King
11. The Contemporary Integrity of the Temple
12. The Role of Nero Caesar
13 . The Role of Jewish Christianity
14. The Looming Jewish War
 
PART IV: ALLEGED DOMITIANIC EVIDENCES EXAMINED
15. Introduction to Domitianic Internal Evidence
16. The Role of Emperor Worship
17. The Persecution of Christianity
18. The Nero Redivivus Myth
19. The Condition of the Seven Churches
 
PART V: CONCLUSION
20. Concluding Remarks
 
Select Bibliography
Select Bibliography I: Modern Writings
Select Bibliography II: Ancient Writings

Date:

29 Aug 2003

Time:

11:44:17

Comments

All preterists make the same highly unspiritual error. They know SOMETHING "passed away" in the first century (Rev. 21:1) and after gazing carefully with their mere natural eyes they conclude that SOMETHING must have been Jerusalem and the temple in AD 70. Although the Bible begins by talking about the heaven and the earth in connection with the creation of the world, preterists' natural vision assures them that the world didn't pass away in the first century. And it's impossible to convince them that in God's eyes - in his spiritual eyes - the old, natural world DID pass away 1,900 years ago, when the new, spiritual and eternal world of Rev. 21 and 22 appeared. Impossible to convince them because they can still SEE the old, natural world and they CAN'T SEE the new, spiritual world. Their view of the New Testament is based entirely on natural, rather than spiritual, observations. So it's not surprising that after 2 Peter 3:5,6 clearly refers to the world, they blithely assure us that the very next verse refers to Israel. As in the case of the dispensationalists, "it is so because it is so."

Date: 30 Jan 2006
Time: 16:58:10

Comments:

Why doesn't anyone notice that the list of tribes given in Revelation is NOT A NORMAL LISTING OF THE TWELVE TRIBES?!


The twelve tribes listed here has added tribes that aren't, and removed tribes that are.


There is a great significance to this, if you understand what each name means. This is a listing of The Church. The 144,000 is the CHURCH.

JAMES PAUL
Pittsburgh, PA

Date: 18 Feb 2006
Time: 19:00:53

Comments:

I just tell others to put any passage in the Bible below Luke 21:22 and harmonize this verse with it. This one is different than ALL things written about the SON OF MAN being fulfilled. This is actually the second part of Isaiah 61 being fulfilled.

Isaiah 61:2  To proclaim the acceptable year of the LORD, And the day of vengeance of our God;

Luke 21:22 "For these are the days of vengeance, that  ALL things which are Written may be fulfilled.

Date: 06 Oct 2006
Time: 06:25:13

Comments:

Question on Replacement Theology: What is the meaning of 1Peter 2:9? Many thanks for your help.
sylvain.nicol777@wanadoo.fr

Date: 18 Nov 2006
Time: 16:05:46

Comments:

my question is that in matthew 24 and 25 I do understand the genre of the chapters but I am having problems with reconciling the angels in the 24 with the angels in 25 and in mark 13. in other words I see an inconsistancy with saying that 24 has angels i.e. diciples of christ sent out with the angels in heaven not knowning the time and the angels in 25 coming with christ in glory as not being one and the same so my question is what justification can be given to applying one scense in 24:31 and a diferrence sense in mark 13 and matthew 25:31

Date: 30 Oct 2007
Time: 19:45:11

Comments:

I just ordered DeMars book LAST DAYS MADNESS, nad am excited to read it. I am new to the reformed world having come from a dispensational backround. I realized that, among other things, dispenationalism is a convaluted system that people try to force onto the Holy Scriptures. The church is Israel.